Re: [arch-d] Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 12 May 2020 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E8A3A0C73; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.973, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CoK0_bXNfIbS; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7FB3A0C70; Tue, 12 May 2020 15:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.46.37]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 04CMrinr024665 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 May 2020 15:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1589324038; x=1589410438; i=@elandsys.com; bh=QHKfsWvq/HDjLY2wOsOT9ZMirkzjlmFBkF8ztVU3DlM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=OLei6EabRB09T9MfUQQBMj+PL9ETmJPjI8P6v9jPAnWfCzf4/d+2BWqO2kTHE9z7R ruH24j/FToB8DRwCQowMG6vdHYH+eR27AcFHLcmFoFpcgvIOjqoAPPDXmvUwsu6THn NjMKCU39AAzy6ZEJH8xEw3XKIQBzOXip8p+WMwSU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200512152625.124c1588@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 15:47:15 -0700
To: iab@iab.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <158920530782.23655.6622928751672901506@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <158920530782.23655.6622928751672901506@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/xp4QvWMT3EmdH95AQMvD6LYVu7w>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 22:54:06 -0000

Dear Internet Architecture Board,
At 06:55 AM 11-05-2020, IESG Secretary wrote:
>The Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance 
>(dmarc) Working Group will hold
>a virtual interim meeting on 2020-06-11 from 16:00 to 17:00 UTC.
>
>Agenda:
>Joint DMARC 2.0 Discussion (M3AAWG and IETF)

During a discussion in an IETF Working Group it was argued that the 
working group is a standards development organization.  I am 
subscribed to several IETF mailing lists.  It is the first time I 
heard such a statement.

I was a bit surprised to read the above announcement about a meeting 
between an external organization and an IETF Working Group which is 
described as a discussion between the external organization and the 
IETF.  I could not find any recent liaison communication between the 
external organization and the IETF.  Would it be possible to share a 
summary of the discussions which led to the above interim meeting?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy